Your article expressed concern for the toll on kids of foreclosures and other economic and social hardships. One can empathize with all who are having difficult times. However, consider another generation that had even tougher times with less of a safety net and became known as the Greatest Generation. The adversities they endured created perseverance in the face of adversity. After prolonged major economic challenges, they were drafted into the horrific battles of World War II with thousands of casualties in one day. At war’s end, they resumed civilian life with minor government help.

John F. Kennedy is lionized for his admonishing Americans: “Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country.” Today’s Americans should learn from them. American philosophy is the pursuit, not the guarantee, of happiness.

There is hope.

Eugene Kozin, Lakewood

This letter was published in the Dec. 4 edition. For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here.

Minor government help??!! Evidently Mr. Kozin never heard of the G.I. Bill, one of the most significant laws of the 20th century. It gave veterans the opportunity to complete high school and attend college. It provided low interest mortgages that gave millions of veterans the chance to own their own home. The GI Bill was the nation’s recognition of the service performed by our armed forces during WWII and fueled the transition to civilian life and postwar prosperity. Minor government help indeed!

Goodspkr

Iris, I agree the the GI Bill was a significant piece of legislation and did change America. But Kozin was talking about 15 years before the GI bill during the Great Depression when FDR cranked up government spending to 20 percent of GDP trying to overcome the depression. Unfortunately it didn’t work

“We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work.” He added, “after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. . . And an enormous debt to boot!”

This was said by Henry Morgenthau, Secretary of the Treasury under Franklin D. Roosevelt and one of FDR’s closest advisers. What finally ended the Great Depression was World War II.

DiscountProf

Are you referring to the original article–the one that Kozin is responding to? You must be, as this quoted passage doesn’t appear in Kozin’s letter.
As for that “enormous debt,” was there some long-term negative consequence of that spending that I’m not aware of? Do you mean to suggest that the US would have been better off if FDR had done something else? It seems to be that the US economy expanded quite nicely for the rest of the century.

Goodspkr

I am more than suggesting that the US economey would have been better off it FDR had done something else, I’m saying it. The Keynesian spending FDR did wasn’t effective. It didn’t do what it was supposed to do (hence the quote to back up that statement).

When WWII came Americans went back to work but because of rationing, demand built up. At the end of the war, people had money and when the restrictions were taken off the economy a boom started. And America had the only big economy that hadn’t been devasted by the war, so we had a boom in the country. I remember as a kid as people talked about the all mighty dollar. It certainly isn’t the case today.

The quote was not from the article. I used the quote to back up my statement.

Anonymous

Goodspkr=BadReader

“Kozin was talking about 15 years before the GI bill during the Great Depression”

Really? Do you mean when he wrote this?

“At war’s end, they resumed civilian life with minor government help.”

How do you think WWII ended the depression? Massive borrowing and spending. It’s called “Military Keynesianism.”

Goodspkr

Nope I meant when he wrote this “The adversities they endured created perseverance in the face of adversity. After prolonged major economic challenges, they were drafted into the horrific battles of World War II with thousands of casualties in one day.” I was focused on he prolonged major economic challenges (the Depression). I do believe the war was something entirely different and while the GI bill was a significant piece of legislation, it did nothing to end the depression.

And as I said in another reply, it was the rationing during the war that led to 4 years of built up demand that ended the depression (remember after the war the Keynesians were worried that they end of war time spending would plunge the USA back into the depression–it didn’t).

Massive government spending didn’t work during the Depression and it is pretty evident it isn’t working now (Unemployment at 9.8%).

But if the Bush Tax cuts are renewed or are allowed to expire, we should have a good measure on how tax cuts either help the economy or whether tax increases help the economy. Anyone want to take any bets?

andyandy

Thank you for the acknowledgment that massive government can be an effective, if unfortunate, tool to save the economy from recession.

But I’d rather be spending the money on roads and bridges than on military toys, because spending on infrastructure increased our national wealth, but military spending does not.

Look around. How many B-17 bombers do you see? How any Hoover Dams do you see? About the same number, that’s how many.

andyandy

I meant “massive government spending,” not “massive government.”

Still can’t type worth a damn, and I can’t figure out how to edet these comments after the fact. Somebody clue me in.

Anonymous

After you post a comment, there should be an edit button in the bottom right hand corner next to the left of the reply button.;-)

andyandy

No on my screen. I’ve tried cussing at it, but it doesn’t help.

Goodspkr

I don’t think I said that massive government spending can be an effective if unfortunate tool to save the economy from recession. Where did you read that in my posting? I spoke of the GI bill benefits as having been a significant piece of legislation. I then spoke of the massive governement spending in the depression quoting Henry Morgenthau saying it didn’t work. So where in the world did you come up with the idea that I said what you indicated here.

andyandy

“What finally ended the Great Depression was World War II. ”

You.

Goodspkr

There you go again, AA, trying to baffle people with your BS.

andyandy

Since when is a direct quote from you considered “baffling them with MY BS?”

Those are your words, goose.

andyandy

As much as you free-marketeers love to pound on that Morganthau quote, it’s simplistic and wrong. If you’re interested in facts, rather than soundbytes I know you’re not…), there are plenty available.

In fact, as New Deal stimulus began, in 1933, GDP growth went up, and unemployment went down until May, 1937, when due to political pressure from the Goodspkrs of the day, stimulus spending was decreased in 1937, after which GNP fell, and unemployment started going up again.

But you are right about one thing. The massive government borrowing and spending associated with WWII aided the recovery. Too bad the money had to be spent building weapons, which ultimately are wealth destroyers, rather than infrastructure, which increased our national wealth.

Facts, baby. The truth will set you free, assuming that’s what you want.

And as for your Morganthau quote, again, it came long before the GI Bill, and, again, it is you, goosestepper, who is attempting to baffle with BS, despite your snide and substanceless poop throwing below.

Is that all ya got?

Goodspkr

Congratulations you actually put up a link with some information on it. Felt good didn’t it?

Now you see that the author credits the fall back in 1937 to FDR backing off on Fed spending to 7.8% from about 10% of GDP. Hey, I’m fine with the Feds spending 10% of GDP.

During the war the Country spent about 45% of GDP. Currently the Democrat congress has up spending to 43.5%. During the war unemployment dropped to 4.7% in 1942 and 1.2% by 1944. If the Democrats with their spending had taken us anywhere near either of those two numbers, they would be the party in power for the next 20 years rather than the next 30 days.

So AA, I commend you on actually looking something up, but your facts don’t support your contentions.

As for you comment “Too bad the money had to be spent building weapons, which ultimately are wealth destroyers, rather than infrastructure, which increased our national wealth.” I would have said, “too bad that you are using a economic strategy that saw over 400,000 Americans die and over 60 million people die around the world.” But that’s just me. World War II did end the depression but the cost of it was more than I care to spend.

Next.

andyandy

You’re the one who invoked WWII as an economic panacea, not me.

Pot meet, kettle.

Facts? You haven’t addressed the facts I provided. They aren’t that hard to understand, I think you’re just more interested in denying them.

The current unemployment figures reflect not just Obama’s stimulus, but the current losses of jobs as a result of Republican polices, which are still hurting us. To say nothing of “free trade,” which even Obama seems to be a supported of. Tragic, but true.

Import tariffs were in place in Roosevelt’s days, because he understood where wealth actually comes from.

And if you think I’ll be dragged into a discussion of AGW with a flat-earther such as yourself, you’re mistaken.

andyandy

You’re the one who invoked WWII as an economic panacea, not me.

Pot meet, kettle.

Facts? You haven’t addressed the facts I provided. They aren’t that hard to understand, I think you’re just more interested in denying them.

The current unemployment figures reflect not just Obama’s stimulus, but the current losses of jobs as a result of Republican polices, which are still hurting us. To say nothing of “free trade,” which even Obama seems to be a supported of. Tragic, but true.

Import tariffs were in place in Roosevelt’s days, because he understood where wealth actually comes from.

And if you think I’ll be dragged into a discussion of AGW with a flat-earther such as yourself, you’re mistaken.

Mandark2002

I absolutely agree! My Dad came home with a government-subsidized education, mortgage, and health care – this writer is trying to make a point that government is useless – tell that to my dad!

andyandy

Keep your government hands off my Medicare!

I swear, how can people so stupid be expected to self-govern?

Goodspkr

I like that people say this. It shows you they were actually listening to the left when LBJ set up Medicare and said it was insurance. You pay in during your working life and you get insurance when you retire. Hospitalization is covered and the receipents have to pay an insurance premium for doctors, etc. There is also a deductible.

Medicare was set up as insurance (a pretty good one too) that paid the costs of medical care. Now the congress is talking about changing the system. The first change (part of Obamacare) was to take 1/2 trillion dollars out of the money that would be spent on Medicare and be the first step in rationing what previously wasn’t rationed. The latest from the debt commission is a proposal to limited the amount the government will spend on Medicare.

The first change will take the money and use it to insure younger people. The second will simply ration care (dare I say “Death Panels.”) I know you guys told us there aren’t any death panels.

I swear, how can people so stupid be expecting to be reelected? I guess that’s why they lost 63 seats in the House and 67% of the seats up for reelection in the Senate. Stupidity is believing what this administration says. Intelligence is seeing what they do and voting accordingly.

Anonymous

Minor government help??!! Evidently Mr. Kozin never heard of the G.I. Bill, one of the most significant laws of the 20th century. It gave veterans the opportunity to complete high school and attend college. It provided low interest mortgages that gave millions of veterans the chance to own their own home. The GI Bill was the nation’s recognition of the service performed by our armed forces during WWII and fueled the transition to civilian life and postwar prosperity. Minor government help indeed!

Goodspkr

Iris, I agree the the GI Bill was a significant piece of legislation and did change America. But Kozin was talking about 15 years before the GI bill during the Great Depression when FDR cranked up government spending to 20 percent of GDP trying to overcome the depression. Unfortunately it didn’t work

“We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work.” He added, “after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. . . And an enormous debt to boot!”

This was said by Henry Morgenthau, Secretary of the Treasury under Franklin D. Roosevelt and one of FDR’s closest advisers. What finally ended the Great Depression was World War II.

DiscountProf

Are you referring to the original article–the one that Kozin is responding to? You must be, as this quoted passage doesn’t appear in Kozin’s letter.
As for that “enormous debt,” was there some long-term negative consequence of that spending that I’m not aware of? Do you mean to suggest that the US would have been better off if FDR had done something else? It seems to be that the US economy expanded quite nicely for the rest of the century.

Goodspkr

I am more than suggesting that the US economey would have been better off it FDR had done something else, I’m saying it. The Keynesian spending FDR did wasn’t effective. It didn’t do what it was supposed to do (hence the quote to back up that statement).

When WWII came Americans went back to work but because of rationing, demand built up. At the end of the war, people had money and when the restrictions were taken off the economy a boom started. And America had the only big economy that hadn’t been devasted by the war, so we had a boom in the country. I remember as a kid as people talked about the all mighty dollar. It certainly isn’t the case today.

The quote was not from the article. I used the quote to back up my statement.

Anonymous

Goodspkr=BadReader

“Kozin was talking about 15 years before the GI bill during the Great Depression”

Really? Do you mean when he wrote this?

“At war’s end, they resumed civilian life with minor government help.”

How do you think WWII ended the depression? Massive borrowing and spending. It’s called “Military Keynesianism.”

Goodspkr

Nope I meant when he wrote this “The adversities they endured created perseverance in the face of adversity. After prolonged major economic challenges, they were drafted into the horrific battles of World War II with thousands of casualties in one day.” I was focused on he prolonged major economic challenges (the Depression). I do believe the war was something entirely different and while the GI bill was a significant piece of legislation, it did nothing to end the depression.

And as I said in another reply, it was the rationing during the war that led to 4 years of built up demand that ended the depression (remember after the war the Keynesians were worried that they end of war time spending would plunge the USA back into the depression–it didn’t).

Massive government spending didn’t work during the Depression and it is pretty evident it isn’t working now (Unemployment at 9.8%).

But if the Bush Tax cuts are renewed or are allowed to expire, we should have a good measure on how tax cuts either help the economy or whether tax increases help the economy. Anyone want to take any bets?

andyandy

Thank you for the acknowledgment that massive government can be an effective, if unfortunate, tool to save the economy from recession.

But I’d rather be spending the money on roads and bridges than on military toys, because spending on infrastructure increased our national wealth, but military spending does not.

Look around. How many B-17 bombers do you see? How any Hoover Dams do you see? About the same number, that’s how many.

andyandy

I meant “massive government spending,” not “massive government.”

Still can’t type worth a damn, and I can’t figure out how to edet these comments after the fact. Somebody clue me in.

Anonymous

After you post a comment, there should be an edit button in the bottom right hand corner next to the left of the reply button.;-)

andyandy

No on my screen. I’ve tried cussing at it, but it doesn’t help.

Goodspkr

I don’t think I said that massive government spending can be an effective if unfortunate tool to save the economy from recession. Where did you read that in my posting? I spoke of the GI bill benefits as having been a significant piece of legislation. I then spoke of the massive governement spending in the depression quoting Henry Morgenthau saying it didn’t work. So where in the world did you come up with the idea that I said what you indicated here.

andyandy

“What finally ended the Great Depression was World War II. ”

You.

Goodspkr

There you go again, AA, trying to baffle people with your BS.

andyandy

Since when is a direct quote from you considered “baffling them with MY BS?”

Those are your words, goose.

andyandy

As much as you free-marketeers love to pound on that Morganthau quote, it’s simplistic and wrong. If you’re interested in facts, rather than soundbytes I know you’re not…), there are plenty available.

In fact, as New Deal stimulus began, in 1933, GDP growth went up, and unemployment went down until May, 1937, when due to political pressure from the Goodspkrs of the day, stimulus spending was decreased in 1937, after which GNP fell, and unemployment started going up again.

But you are right about one thing. The massive government borrowing and spending associated with WWII aided the recovery. Too bad the money had to be spent building weapons, which ultimately are wealth destroyers, rather than infrastructure, which increased our national wealth.

Facts, baby. The truth will set you free, assuming that’s what you want.

And as for your Morganthau quote, again, it came long before the GI Bill, and, again, it is you, goosestepper, who is attempting to baffle with BS, despite your snide and substanceless poop throwing below.

Is that all ya got?

Goodspkr

Congratulations you actually put up a link with some information on it. Felt good didn’t it?

Now you see that the author credits the fall back in 1937 to FDR backing off on Fed spending to 7.8% from about 10% of GDP. Hey, I’m fine with the Feds spending 10% of GDP.

During the war the Country spent about 45% of GDP. Currently the Democrat congress has up spending to 43.5%. During the war unemployment dropped to 4.7% in 1942 and 1.2% by 1944. If the Democrats with their spending had taken us anywhere near either of those two numbers, they would be the party in power for the next 20 years rather than the next 30 days.

So AA, I commend you on actually looking something up, but your facts don’t support your contentions.

As for you comment “Too bad the money had to be spent building weapons, which ultimately are wealth destroyers, rather than infrastructure, which increased our national wealth.” I would have said, “too bad that you are using a economic strategy that saw over 400,000 Americans die and over 60 million people die around the world.” But that’s just me. World War II did end the depression but the cost of it was more than I care to spend.

Next.

andyandy

You’re the one who invoked WWII as an economic panacea, not me.

Pot meet, kettle.

Facts? You haven’t addressed the facts I provided. They aren’t that hard to understand, I think you’re just more interested in denying them.

The current unemployment figures reflect not just Obama’s stimulus, but the current losses of jobs as a result of Republican polices, which are still hurting us. To say nothing of “free trade,” which even Obama seems to be a supported of. Tragic, but true.

Import tariffs were in place in Roosevelt’s days, because he understood where wealth actually comes from.

And if you think I’ll be dragged into a discussion of AGW with a flat-earther such as yourself, you’re mistaken.

Mandark2002

I absolutely agree! My Dad came home with a government-subsidized education, mortgage, and health care – this writer is trying to make a point that government is useless – tell that to my dad!

andyandy

Keep your government hands off my Medicare!

I swear, how can people so stupid be expected to self-govern?

Goodspkr

I like that people say this. It shows you they were actually listening to the left when LBJ set up Medicare and said it was insurance. You pay in during your working life and you get insurance when you retire. Hospitalization is covered and the receipents have to pay an insurance premium for doctors, etc. There is also a deductible.

Medicare was set up as insurance (a pretty good one too) that paid the costs of medical care. Now the congress is talking about changing the system. The first change (part of Obamacare) was to take 1/2 trillion dollars out of the money that would be spent on Medicare and be the first step in rationing what previously wasn’t rationed. The latest from the debt commission is a proposal to limited the amount the government will spend on Medicare.

The first change will take the money and use it to insure younger people. The second will simply ration care (dare I say “Death Panels.”) I know you guys told us there aren’t any death panels.

I swear, how can people so stupid be expecting to be reelected? I guess that’s why they lost 63 seats in the House and 67% of the seats up for reelection in the Senate. Stupidity is believing what this administration says. Intelligence is seeing what they do and voting accordingly.

andyandy

Sorry, goosestepper, Mandark’s comment referred to people like you who don’t think the government can do anything, despite the facts. I didn’t mean to give you an opportunity to get off on your favorite rant about Obamacare, which has nothing to do with the thread, any more than the GI Bill came before WWII.

Try to focus.

That said, I don’t believe a word you say about Obamacare anyway, because I know you immerse yourself in right-wing propaganda and lies. Someone with the credibility problems you have would be well advised to offer links to non-partisan sites which would bolster your wild contentions.

In other words, I have a hard time believing anything you say, and you aren’t making it any easier. Keep pounding on the Death Panel canard, as if health care weren’t already rationed in this country.

I can imagine Hawkeye and Trapper John demanding financial statements from wounded soldiers before treating their wounds. That’s your ideal, right? Learn about “triage,” GS.

Morganthau, indeed. Give it a rest, GS. We’re pretty full up with your lies here.

Goodspkr

That said, I don’t believe a word you say about Obamacare anyway, because I know you immerse yourself in right-wing propaganda and lies. Someone with the credibility problems you have would be well advised to offer links to non-partisan sites which would bolster your wild contentions.

In other words, I have a hard time believing anything you say, and you aren’t making it any easier. Keep pounding on the Death Panel canard, as if health care weren’t already rationed in this country.<<AA

You really don't have any idea what you are talking about.

Here's a write up from my blog from last March

One of the statistics you hear a lot of from supporters of universal healthcare is that it would save 40,000 lives per year. But the study that came up with this figure assumes that by providing universal healthcare everyone would be brought up to the standards of care we have today in America.

But is that realistic? What we know is that in Europe where there is universal healthcare there is also a lot of cost containment measures that make the quality of care in Europe less than America. In 2004 Europeans saw 2.9 million cases of cancers with 1.7 million deaths. That same year in the USA we had 1.37 million cases of cancer and 563 thousand deaths.

The rate of cancer mortality in the USA was 41% while in Europe it was 58.6%. The difference between these two numbers means 237,000 Americans survived that would have died with European style universal healthcare.

What we are looking at is not saving 40,000 lives, but condemning an additional 237,000 Americans to death each year.

Death panels? You betcha!

andyandy

Hardly a big picture analysis, goose.

You guys keep dragging that one statistic out over and over, because it’s the only one you can find which make our system not look like the disgrace it is.

You know as well as I do that we are rated 37th when all facts are considered.

Except profit, that is. We’re numero uno in that area.

andyandy

Sorry, goosestepper, Mandark’s comment referred to people like you who don’t think the government can do anything, despite the facts. I didn’t mean to give you an opportunity to get off on your favorite rant about Obamacare, which has nothing to do with the thread, any more than the GI Bill came before WWII.

Try to focus.

That said, I don’t believe a word you say about Obamacare anyway, because I know you immerse yourself in right-wing propaganda and lies. Someone with the credibility problems you have would be well advised to offer links to non-partisan sites which would bolster your wild contentions.

In other words, I have a hard time believing anything you say, and you aren’t making it any easier. Keep pounding on the Death Panel canard, as if health care weren’t already rationed in this country.

I can imagine Hawkeye and Trapper John demanding financial statements from wounded soldiers before treating their wounds. That’s your ideal, right? Learn about “triage,” GS.

Morganthau, indeed. Give it a rest, GS. We’re pretty full up with your lies here.

Goodspkr

That said, I don’t believe a word you say about Obamacare anyway, because I know you immerse yourself in right-wing propaganda and lies. Someone with the credibility problems you have would be well advised to offer links to non-partisan sites which would bolster your wild contentions.

In other words, I have a hard time believing anything you say, and you aren’t making it any easier. Keep pounding on the Death Panel canard, as if health care weren’t already rationed in this country.<<AA

You really don't have any idea what you are talking about.

Here's a write up from my blog from last March

One of the statistics you hear a lot of from supporters of universal healthcare is that it would save 40,000 lives per year. But the study that came up with this figure assumes that by providing universal healthcare everyone would be brought up to the standards of care we have today in America.

But is that realistic? What we know is that in Europe where there is universal healthcare there is also a lot of cost containment measures that make the quality of care in Europe less than America. In 2004 Europeans saw 2.9 million cases of cancers with 1.7 million deaths. That same year in the USA we had 1.37 million cases of cancer and 563 thousand deaths.

The rate of cancer mortality in the USA was 41% while in Europe it was 58.6%. The difference between these two numbers means 237,000 Americans survived that would have died with European style universal healthcare.

What we are looking at is not saving 40,000 lives, but condemning an additional 237,000 Americans to death each year.

Death panels? You betcha!

andyandy

Hardly a big picture analysis, goose.

You guys keep dragging that one statistic out over and over, because it’s the only one you can find which make our system not look like the disgrace it is.

You know as well as I do that we are rated 37th when all facts are considered.

Guidelines: The Post welcomes letters up to 150 words on topics of general interest. Letters must include full name, home address, day and evening phone numbers, and may be edited for length, grammar and accuracy.